I don't believe that any human mind
is capable of 100 percent error. So instead of asking which
approach is right and which is wrong, we assume each approach is
true but partial, and then try to figure out how to fit these
partial truths together, how to integrate them--not how to pick one
and get rid of the others.

-Ken Wilber (from the foreword
toThe Eye of
Spirit)

Introduction

While
attempting to keep to the larger vision of integral studies as a
whole I shall be proposing a rudimentary outline of an underlying
assertion primarily based upon the works of Ken Wilber, Jean
Gebser, Don Beck and Christopher Cowan (based on the work of Clare
Graves), and Mark B. Woodhouse. Robert Kegan, Howard Gardner, James
Mark Baldwin, Susan Cook-Greuter, and Carol Gilligan are influences
working in the background.

Perhaps the
most important thing to keep in mind when trying to understand
integral studies as a field is that a fundamental, underlying
message in Wilber's, Graves', Beck's, Gebser's, and Woodhouse's
work is that we are currently in a pivotal transition from one age
to another.

The idea,
and this is a rather popular idea, is that we are in the throes of
a rather deep and penetrating shift in collective consciousness
complete with its own once-in-a-lifetime phenomena. In my humble
opinion, the works exemplified in this essay are among the most
sophisticated, timely, and comprehensive manifestations of this
general perception of global transformation.

The main
function of this essay is to serve as a preliminary introduction to
the new field of integral studies by looking into four particular
theorists. Three of these, Wilber, Beck, and Gebser, are highly
influential and central to the field. This has much to do with
Wilber's highly influential work. Woodhouse, on the other hand,
exemplifies an "outsider" perspective yet remains, I believe just
as inclusive.

This is an
argument for the validity of the integral approach and a call to
awareness about the transition that is represents. By proposing a
context for the field within the boundaries of the common
underlying message of a profound shift in human consciousness, we
can come to a greater comprehension of what can be considered to be
among the most refined manifestations of human potential to
date.

In the
following pages I have attempted to bring together a few of the
more comprehensive maps central to the endeavor of integral theory.
There are powerful forces at work in the world that shape and mould
our experience as human beings. It has been postulated that ever
since humankind started to record this experience there have been
attempts at grand, universal visions designed to explain and to
help in comprehending and dealing with the mysterious dilemma of
existence.

To use
Gebser's terminology, we are currently moving through a
mutation (acausal leap) into the next step in our collective
development. Gebser and as we shall see, the other theorists
presented here, are not alone in this view. There exist plenty of
theorists and outspoken individuals and groups who have proposed
very similar if not exact pictures. On that note, it should be kept
in mind that the ideas represented here are more than just
concepts. They are more like invitations into a flow of awareness
just beginning to emerge in the general population.

However, in
order to gain a sufficient understanding of the work, it might help
to define the term "integral" first. Briefly stated, integral means
a bringing together and strategically linking of apparently
contradictory or seemingly divergent worldviews, concepts, and
practices in the attempt to create a realistic, workable, fluid,
and dynamic "meta-vision."[1]This is a "grand unifying theory"
as opposed to a "grand unified theory," the latter of which
suggests a summation of all knowledge, an absolute, an end, which
is absurd and unrealistic.

Based upon
this definition, integral studies is exemplary of a new level of
development, an aperspectival[2]way of being. It is extremely
important to understand that these theorists (with the exception of
Woodhouse and to a certain degree, Beck) have attempted to write or
propose their vision from a point of view that essentially
transcends yet includes the rational mind. That is, the average
mode of thinking is in a linear, causal manner where all phenomena
have a cause and an effect, a beginning and an end. This mode of
thought is what we normally fall back on and cultivate when in the
process of reading or writing. For example, the traditional book
format is a linear model with a beginning and an end. The meaning
behind the words on each page builds upon each proceeding page
until a whole context of understanding is (ideally), created. In
Wilber's terms, the book is a holon: wholes, within wholes, within
wholes. Each context, or book, is different to some extent in terms
of the length, size, form, color, weight, language, style, meaning,
etc., yet each book, by the simple fact that it is a book, is to
some extent, both a reflection of the dominant mode of thought or
way of being of the collective consciousness or an era and the
consciousness an individual author. In the era that we are
currently moving out of, according to Gebser, the rational mind has
been dominant and all-pervasive. In the era that we are currently
moving into, integral/aperspectivalwill be the dominant mode.[3]It is from this mode of thinking that
much of these ideas are founded upon.

The integral
vision rides the crest of the leading developments in our
postmodern world. Every era has its most sophisticated, highly
developed, and ultimately influential expressions. The European
Renaissance and the legacy of Ancient Greece are but two examples.
However, unlike these, the integral vision is difficult to place
within the context of history and time. The reason for this
apparent ambiguity is simple. It is merely a matter of perspective.
In integral studies there are multiple perspectives. Indeed, every
perspective is attempted to be taken into account on some level, as
being if anything, a partial truth. This is part of the
point.[4]In other words, one of the main
reasons why there is such a thing as Integral Studies, Integral
Theory, Integral Psychology, Integral Business, Integral
Consciousness Studies, and Integral Art can be understood in terms
of multidimensional, multi-level thinking and, furthermore,
being.As already
mentioned, this is what Gebser calls
integral-aperspectival,what Wilber calls vision-logicand what Beck calls
Second-Tier:

This
multidimensional grid--not simply all-level, all quadrant--opens
the study of human beings in a profound fashion. That, of course,
is part of integral studies . . . Thus, modern-day integral studies
can do something at which the great traditions failed: trace the
spectrum of consciousness not just in its intentional but also in
its behavioral, social, and cultural manifestations, thus
highlighting the importance of a multidimensional approach for a
truly comprehensive overview of human consciousness and
behavior.
[5]

It can be
said that the historical context of the integral vision is cradled
within the perennial philosophy in a general sense and the "Great
Chain of Being" in a specific sense.[6]The idea behind the perennial
philosophy is that it is as old as recorded history (if not older)
and runs through and underneath every great spiritual or religious
tradition in the world. It is "perennial" because it seems to be
ever-present, that is, undying. It manifests in nearly every
culture and in every age. The perennial philosophy is best
exemplified by the recognition of the unifying, timeless,
spaceless, and formless quality behind, above, within, below, and
encompassing all of existence. "In other words, the perennial
philosophy is not, at its core, a set of doctrines, beliefs,
teaching, or ideas, for all of those are of the world of form, of
space and time and ceaseless change, whereas very Truth is
radically formless, spaceless, and timeless, encompassing
allspace and time,
and thus it could never be enunciated in formal or doctrinal
fashion."[7]

The integral
vision, although firmly rooted in the philosophia
perennis,recognizes
that the world's problems and that the average person's needs are
not answered through the perennial philosophy alone, that is, the
perennial philosophy can only speak about one aspect of life. It
cannot, for example, give data about population percentages or help
us understand certain physical phenomena such as the wave function
or magnetic fields. It cannot reveal to us the deep psychological
issues predominantly centered on the personal level of the
individual. Wilber goes to great lengths in revealing the
limitations of the great mystical traditions despite their ability
to point the way to transpersonal awareness.[8]

If
approached in the manner that will be employed here, it can be seen
that existence, and more specifically, human existence, follows a
continuum of development, a spiral,if you will. The notion of the spiral is an
elegant model in the context of this comprehension. It can be seen
as both linear
and as cyclical. Our representative of the spiral
model of development in the following pages is Don Beck and Chris
Cowan in what they have dubbed Spiral Dynamics. By looking
into the Spiral Dynamics model we can begin to see just how such
seemingly different phenomena such as the perennial wisdom
traditions and complex modern issues such as environmental
degradation and the global infrastructure relate to each other. We
can begin to make important connections between all expressions of
human existence. By doing so we are creating a space for the
further expansion of consciousness both on the collective level and
on the individual level. Spiral Dynamics has much to contribute to
integral studies, as we shall see.[9]

Integral
studies is highly informed by theories of development: development
of individuals, development of cultures, development of nations,
ecosystems, biospheres, noospheres, planets, cosmos, and most
importantly, consciousness. The desire to create a new model and
approach to every field of human inquiry and action imaginable is
also pivotal here. It is a reaction, but not reactionary, to the
pathologies of modernism and postmodernism. In it's highest ideals
it is comprehensive, all-level, atemporal,[10]fluid, open-ended, and constantly
shifting to accommodate the seemingly never-ending transcending and
including that is at the heart of all development, i.e., this
movement is deeply holonic. It makes connections but not at the
cost of distinctions. It overlooks nothing while remaining
realistic and sensitive to time, place, state, and perspective. It
is scientific yet spiritual, rational yet intuitive, critical yet
open. In fact, in my opinion, one of the more fascinating aspects
of this approach is the discussion of the need for the individual
seeking veritionin
this realm to develop and call upon a "higher" order of thinking
(as in Wilber's vision-logic). As already mentioned, Jean Gebser
uses the term(s) "integral/aperspectival" to refer to a similar
state of high comprehension. Don Beck follows suit when he
describes the manifestation of Second Tier thinking starting with
the Yellow vMEME and the Turquoise vMEME.[11]All of these examples I will cover in
more detail later, evaluating and summarizing each individuals'
work in the context of the birthing of a new structure of
consciousness.

This "higher
order" is merely a step in a process that extends much further. For
example, Wilber has done much to describe levels of development
that range beyond the rational and the vision-logic/centauric
level. These are the transrational, transmental, and transpersonal
realms. In the latter case, transpersonal psychologists are
primarily concerned with exploring this fascinating realm. They are
interested in supramental phenomena of consciousness heretofore
never adequately looked at or revisited from a more verifiable,
concrete perspective. Not until the twentieth century has there
been such a development or recognition of the need for more
verifiably valid data. Indeed, this ability to offer questions of
verifiability, injunctions, and paradigms is one of the enduring
gifts of both modernism and postmodernism (a topic of great
interest to all the theorists discussed here). In this regard
Wilber states that:

Since Kant, we have been
forced to acknowledge, not that metaphysics is meaningless, but
that metaphysics without direct experience is meaningless.And
direct transpersonal experience relies on genuine transpersonal
practices, paradigms, injunctions, and exemplars, which disclose
the domains of post-postconventional experience that alone can
ground a verifiable spiritual knowledge, thus fulfilling the
Idealist promise precisely by transcending its limited
agenda.[12]

Fundamental
to the vision is the idea of integrating and balancing not only
seemingly disparate worldviews or paradigms, but integrating and
balancing seemingly disparate spiritual practices, psychological
methodologies, medical practices, scientific methods, political
agendas, art, business practices, and other varied injunctions too
numerous to mention. No less important is the need to integrate and
balance our individual understanding of such things from the
different levels and states of our being, to integrate our
understanding from the level of whole groups of individuals to
whole cultures, and ultimately to the whole planet. Hopefully, as
information and experience permits, this integrating will move into
the outer as well as the inner reaches of time and space, physical
and non-physical, into worlds as yet unseen by humankind. Indeed,
nothing shall be overlooked. Not that all shall be neatly
compartmentalized, but rather that all shall be taken into account
when trying to construct dynamic and comprehensive maps of the
Kosmos.[13]

Now, in the
process of creating this more complete picture of the manifest and
unmanifest realms through the use of hierarchies (holarchies) it
should be kept in mind that there is a sharp distinction between
pathologicalhierarchies and naturalhierarchies:

Each
is a whole/part, a holon, existing in a natural
hierarchy,or an order of increasing
wholeness and holism . . . But that which transcends can
repress.And thus normal and natural hierarchies can degenerate into
pathological hierarchies, into dominator hierarchies.In these
cases, an arrogant holon doesn't want to be both a whole and a
part; it wants to be a whole, period . . . Power replaces
communion; domination replaces communication; oppression replaces
reciprocity.[14]

It should
also be mentioned that, by and large, the ability to construct an
integral vision of the world has never, in known history, been
attainable to a large percentage of the world population. Never
before has information and the complete variety of spiritual
practices been as accessible as it is today. That is the upshot of
postmodernism and the information age. Multimedia, the internet,
books, and the general availability of diver
se ways of knowing,
whether embraced or not, make it possible to become acquainted with
these dynamic systems and to be open to integration and synthesis
on a multitude of levels. It is my intention to make all of this
more apparent in the following pages. In the first section I will
introduce some of the more salient aspects of the four approaches
represented here. Ken Wilber with his Integral, AQAL approach, Jean
Gebser and his five structures of consciousness, Beck and Cowan
with Spiral Dynamics, and Mark B. Woodhouse and his "new
paradigms." In the second section I will briefly cover the theory,
practice, and visions for the future of comprehensive mapmaking. I
believe that the ideas covered here will increasingly be of more
significance and importance as current events continue their onward
march.

I. The
Theorists

Ken
Wilber

In many
important ways, Wilber has been the most pivotal writer to
popularize the issues presented here. He is credited with
synthesizing unrelated and often contradictory disciplines. Whether
you agree with every single detail or not there is simply no way to
discredit what he has done to introduce the world to the endeavor
of comprehensive mapmaking. If one is searching for an
ever-increasingly holistic picture of the phenomenon of
consciousness in the grand universal context, he is without a
doubt, an excellent place to start. The simple fact that he draws
from such diverse elements as evolutionary theory, cultural
studies, spirituality and systems theory among many other fields,
helps to support this statement. All of his books are excellent
overviews of what a larger vision of the universe canlook like. Yet, only a few of
these books cover his latest and most refined work.[15]The Eye of Spirit, Integral
Psychology,and
Sex, Ecology, Spirituality,seem to exemplify his most refined work.[16]
Not only do these texts represent his latest model, they are also
mature examples of the latest in what can be rightly called a
"world philosophy."[17]

Since the
publication of his first book The Spectrum of
Consciousness[18]he has almost single-handedly
revived the popular and professional interest in areas such as
Consciousness Studies, Transpersonal Psychology, and Spirituality.
According to his publisher, Shambhala Publications, he is the most
widely translated living academic writer in the world. No small
feat for someone who lives outside of the academic
mainstream.

Wilber's
work is directly influenced by Alfred North Whitehead, Emerson,
Plotinus, Nagarjuna, and Sri Aurobindo. Not to mention Jurgen
Habermas, Hegel, Piaget, James Mark Baldwin, Jean Gebser,
Schelling, and several representative figures from the great
nondual mystical traditions.[19]Of course, this list is still
incomplete, however, it gives a fair idea of where his center of
gravity has been.

Wilber's
methodology, to put it simply, is founded upon what he calls
"orienting generalizations." Here the general idea is to arrange as
much information as possible from as many fields and traditions as
possible and for argument's sake assume that all the views proposed
are true but partial. From here it is then possible to try to
devise a system of understanding whereby as many of these truths
are intentionally incorporated into this meta-system, this integral
understanding:

He is not worried, nor
should his reader be, about whether otherfields would accept
the conclusion of any given field; in short, don't worry, for
example, if empiricist conclusions do not match religious
conclusions. Instead, simply assemble all the orienting conclusions
as if each field had incredibly important truths to tell us. This
is exactly Wilber's first step in his integrative method--a type of
phenomenology of all human knowledge conducted at the level of
orienting generalizations. In other words, assemble all of the
truths that each field believes it has to offer humanity. For the
moment, simply assume they are indeed true . . . For the second
step in Wilber's method is to take all of the truths or orienting
generalizations assembled in the first step and then pose this
question: What coherent system would in fact incorporate the
greatest number of these truths?[20]

From this
point it is possible to "connect-the-dots" and establish meaningful
communication between systems that would otherwise seem at odds
with each other. To use his language this is called AQAL, short for
all quadrants, all levels, all lines, all states . .
.

The next
cornerstone backing up his whole theory is what he has termed the
"four quadrants." Here we have an elegant visual representation of
the pathologies and the contributions of the premodern, modern, and
postmodern worldviews with the added feature of it being a
post-postmodern vision itself. In the upper left-hand (UL) quadrant
we have the interior-individual. This quadrant represents everything that is
related to the individual and the interior aspects of the
individual. Fields such as psychology, psychiatry, individualized
spirituality, mathematics, phenomenology, and anything requiring
interpretation on the level of single holons is what we are talking
about here. This quadrant also represents the "I" aspect of nature.
Next we have the lower left (LL) where everything is still interior
except that now we are talking about collectiveinteriors. This is the cultural
worldspace where interpretation still reigns supreme but only on
the level of multiple holons. Here we have shared, cultural values
and worldspaces. Pursuits and anything related to community and
culture dominate here. This is also known as the "We" aspect.
Moving on, we come to the
right-hand paths. The right-hand paths
are monological, empirical/positivistic, and oriented around
material or physical sciences. Here, in the upper-right (UR) is the
individual-exterior.This represents all of the sciences dedicated
to the pursuit of quantifiable, individual holons. Physics,
neurobiology, empiricism, behaviorism, etc. are seen here. In the
lower-right quadrant (LR) is the
collective-exterior.Systems theory, Marxism, and sociology are
exemplified here and instead of being itsingular to denote an individual exterior
approach, the LR is comprised of its,plural. Both right-hand paths are also
referred to as the "IT" of nature. Wilber calls the I, the WE, and
the IT the "Big Three."[21]

The four
quadrants can be put in other ways as well. The examples given
above show the four quadrants applied to human pursuits and
understandings. For now, a more detailed description of this
application can be skipped since that would mean more than just an
introduction to integral theory. I wish only to cover the basics.
Other important concepts of his include the Pre/Trans
fallacy,a recognition
that the difference between prerational and transrational states of
awareness are often confused with each other due to the fact that
they are, by definition, nonrational.[22]Wilber has gone to great lengths
to point out how this occurs, who is, in his opinion, committing
the fallacy, and how to avoid it.

Perhaps most
importantly, his theories are, in all actuality, a call to
transformative practice. Repeatedly, he reminds the reader that all
true understanding is grounded in such practice and that the
intellect alone will not carry one to the higher realizations
discussed in his work.

Ken Wilber
is by no means the first or the last word on proposals for new ways
of comprehending our times. There have been many before him and
there will be many after. When it comes to predecessors and an
individual who Wilber credits much of his work to, Jean Gebser
takes center stage.[23]

Jean
Gebser: The Aperspectival World

This Swiss
cultural philosopher and poet, however seemingly obscure, is
certainly one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century. I
believe that anyone who has ever read The Ever-Present
Origin[24]would not deny this. What makes
his work so impressive is the execution of his proposal and central
thesis that humankind undergoes radical shifts or
mutationsin
consciousness and that we are currently emerging into what he
called the integral/aperspectival consciousness, an idea that
remains quite novel for its time and place.

Gebser was
born in Posen,[25]Prussia (now Poland) on August
20, 1905, an auspicious time indeed:

In
the same year, Albert Einstein formulated his special theory of
relativity--a theory that, for Gebser, came to epitomize the radical
transformation of our Western civilization which it was his
life-task to understand, document, and communicate. For Gebser, the
Einsteinian innovation in thought was an important manifestation of
a new consciousness of time, which he rightly identified as
the fundamental theme of our epoch.[26]

Aristocratic
by birth, Gebser eventually relocated to Switzerland after spending
several years in Germany, Florence, and Spain[27]and Paris (where he unhappily
lived despite his access to the circle around Paul Eduard, Louis
Aragon, Andre Malraux, and Pablo Picasso).[28]It was when he made his final move to
Switzerland in 1939 that he was to find the intellectual space to
finally write his magnum opus: The Ever-Present
Origin(first
published in 1953[29]despite having been financially
poor by this time).

In The
Ever-Present OriginGebser outlines five great stages or
structuresof
collective human consciousness. Although these structures have been
applied to the individual level as well[30]Gebser was predominantly only
interested in the cultural level of development. In this regard it
should also be noted that he was acutely aware of his European
background and was, therefore, not ignorant of the fact that his
was a uniquely European bias by default.[31]Thankfully, as his modern-day
proponents and popularizers have so assiduously tried to make
clear, his ideas are by no means limited to Europe, or more
importantly, to the time in which
he lived. Though one can
definitely see the European in Gebser, he is still considered to be
ahead of his time.

Gebser's
structures of consciousness include: 1) the archaic; 2) the
magical; 3) the mythical; 4) the mental/rational; and 5) the
integral/aperspectival (the emergent consciousness).[32]The archaic structure is characterized
by a total absence of dimensionality likened to a state of deep,
dreamless sleep. The archaic is zero-dimensional, non-perspectival,
and lacking any sense of separation from the environment. It is
"the source from which all springs, but it is that which springs
forth itself. It is the essence which is behind and which underlies
consciousness" and "it is just there, and things just
happen."[33]This structure is the most difficult
to describe because it is the farthest from what we know and where
we are now.

The magical
structure of consciousness is characterized by a "one-dimensional,
pre-perspectival, point-like existence that occurs in a dream-like
state. Unlike the dreamlessness of the previous structure, a
recognition is developing in man that he is something different
from that around him . . . Feuerstein, one of Gebser's main
biographers, feels that this structure persisted till around 40,000
BC and the advent of the Cro-Magnons."[34]This structure is also referred
to as being in attunement with the natural rhythms of the
environment and is very alive today in such phenomena as Voodoo and
Wicca[35]where a magical worldview
dominates.

Historically, according to Gebser, the
transition from magical to mythical marked the beginning of the
two-dimensional, symbolic consciousness. "Language is becoming ever
more important"[36]as is the ability to interpret
life as a series of ever-complexifying myths. It can best be
likened to a dream and is alive today through influences such as
Joseph Campbell and Robert Bly who have helped us to understand
this most crucial element of consciousness.[37]

By the time
we reach the mental structure of consciousness we begin to see a
radical shift from two-dimensional (mythical) into
three-dimensional space. Historically, in the Western tradition,
the example of this was classical Greece. According to this version
of history, the early Greeks such as Aristotle, Pythagoras, Plato,
and of course, Socrates were among the first to display this
structure. As would be guessed, much more is known about this
structure than any of the others. It has been the dominant mode
since its emergence around 10,000 to 500 BC and has only begun to
wane in our era. There have been many stages to this structure but
the basic characteristics of being perpsectivally and analytically
oriented have remained consistent. Time, space, and point of view
are the hallmarks of this structure. It is also likened to
wakefulness (as opposed to the sleep specific magic and mythical
structures).[38]Finally, we reach the fifth
structure of consciousness, the integral/aperspectival world on
which much if not all of Gebser's efforts rest. It is called
"integral" because of the unique ability to add up all of the
perspectives and transcend the limitations of three-dimensionality.
It stresses the importance of the relationsbetween the perspectives themselves. As
already stated, the aperspectival mind is synonymous with Wilber's
vision-logicand
therefore has the same characteristic of adding up "all the
perspectives tout ensemble,and therefore privileges no perspective as
final:it is
aperspectival."[39]In Gebser's terms this primary
characteristic is "transparency" or "diaphaneity" which, along with
the term "latency" are among the most important terms he
uses.[40]

The
integral/aperspectival is marked by being acausal, awaring,
arational, aspacial, and atemporal. Terms which imply not a
negation but rather a "stepping out of" a dualistic relationship.
In other words, aperspectivism is not a contradiction in terms. It
is a "perspective" that does notseek to come from no perspective. It is,
rather, a "perspective" that seeks to, as already stated, favor no
one perspective as being dominate over another. It is a fluid
understanding of the multiplicity of perspectives available and
seeking to honor each of them in the context of the whole. Thus,
the aperspectival, by not choosing favorites, seeks to to honor
each of them in the context of the every-increasing understanding
of the whole. The aperspectival, by doing this, seeks to establish
a new holistic and more complete verstehen. It necessarily requires a leap into
a mode of awareness generally not employed by the world at large.
The closest equivalent manifestation (that is only among the very
first signs) of this structure so farhas been the healthier aspects of
postmodernism.[41]However, according to Wilber,
Feuerstein, Gebser, and Gebser's many proponents, the
integral/aperspectival structure has yet to fully
develop.

To assist in
the identification of the themes inherent in the birthing of this
new aperspectival world Gebser gave a list of certain key terms
crucial to this end:

Such often
cryptic terms are only linguistic flags to help recognize this
emergent consciousness and should not be taken as absolute
signifiers. Gebser, like most pioneers, found the use of language
limiting in his attempt to share his crucial insights but
nonetheless, used it with skill and creativity.[43]As already mentioned, many of his
ideas had no active terms for them during his day. As a result, he
took the liberty of creating his own. In the context of his overall
theory, three terms stand out: eteology, systasis,and
synairesis.These
are important terms because they adequately describe his
"methodology" even if they do not lend themselves well to average
usage.

To Gebser,
what he was proposing through The Ever-Present Originwas not another philosophy but,
rather, a new "eteology. In other words still: "The Greek word
eteosmeans 'true,
real'; as an adverb, eteonmeans 'in accord with truth, truly, really'
and comes from the root se:es, meaning 'to be'."[44]The difference comes with the
understanding that a philosophy is another three-dimensional,
rational system. An eteology, on the other hand:

(M)ust replace philosophy
just as philosophy once replaced myths. In the eteologemes, the
eteon or being-in-truth comes to veracity or statement of truth,
and the "wares" of guards or guards verity and conveys the
"verition" which arises from the a-waring and imparting of truth.
Eteology, then, is neither a mere ontology, that is, theory of
being, nor is it a theory of existence. The dualistic question of
being versus non-being which is commensurate only with the mental
structure is superceded by eteology, together with the secularized
question as to being, whose content--or more exactly whose
vacuity--is nothing more than existence. Every eteologeme is a
"verition," and as such is valid only when it allows origin to
become transparent in the present. To do this it must be formulated
in such a way as to be free of ego, and this means not just free of
subject but also free of object; only then does it sustain the
verity of the whole. This has nothing to do with representation;
only in philosophical thought can the world be represented; for
the integral perception of truth, the world is pure statement, and
thus "verition."[45]

To put it
bluntly, Gebser is proposing a whole new way of being and The
Ever-Present Originis
specifically written from the viewpoint of this "verition." It
would seem that this is part of the reason why his work seems so
cryptic and esoteric. In a very real sense, it requires a level of
understanding yet to be experienced by the vast majority of people
on the planet. From an outsider perspective, this stance would seem
to be impractical and even arrogant. Yet, perhaps it is meant to be
seen as a necessary variable in an attempt to push the evolutionary
impulse that much further. Indeed, what if people like Gebser, by
creating a new "space" where such thought-forms didn't exist
before, act as an attractoror even create a field that catalylizes or
"pulls" the collective consciousness to emerge into that new way of
being in the world?

Systasis is
"the conjoining or fitting together of parts into
integrality."[46]It is the actual process of merging
partials into a whole.[47]Synairesis, on the other hand, is "an
integral understanding, or perception, of reality."[48]Synairesis is the "verition" and
systasis is the process. Interestingly enough, Gebser's intention
for using such terms was to transcend the limitations of
three-dimensional thought through the use of linguistic signifiers,
like a Zen koan. It is a call to freedom from the bondage of time
and space. A call to a "liberating understanding of the
whole."[49]A call to which we are just beginning
to heed.

Clare
Graves & Don Beck:
The Second Tier: Spiral Dynamics

In the
relentless attempt to construct a more efficient, visionary, and
complete model of consciousness few such models have had as much
practical impact as Spiral Dynamics (SD). In their book by the same
name, Don Beck and Christopher Cowan took the psychological
principles as outlined and proposed by Clare Graves[50]and expanded them to include the
"fledgling science of memetics"[51]and (more recently) the sophisticated
theories of Ken Wilber thus creating Spiral Dynamics
Integral(SDi)[52]: "Spiral Dynamics,(is) a
bio-psycho-social-spiritual conceptual system that describes how
and when worldviews emerge, and how they form themselves naturally
into spirals of complexity. The Spiral is not a cookie-cutter; it
is a process."[53]

Thus, Spiral
Dynamics has become one of the only sophisticated applications of
effective change with a truly integral/holistic approach. Graves'
model, unlike many theoreticians, was specifically designed to be
applicable in the real world. This characteristic is what
immediately makes Spiral Dynamics unique, especially in the context
of integral theory.[54]

Like the
other theorists presented here and like all of the great holistic
thinkers, Graves was a developmentalist. In his own
words:

Briefly, what I am proposing
is that the psychology of the mature human being is an unfolding,
emergent, oscillating spiraling process marked by progressive
subordination of older, lower-order behavior systems to newer,
higher-order systems as man's existential problems change. Each
successive stage, wave, or level of existence is a state through
which people pass on their way to other states of being. When the
human is centralized in one state of existence he or she has a
psychology which is particular to that state. His or her feelings,
motivations, ethics and values, biochemistry, degree of
neurological activation, learning system, belief systems,
conception of mental health, ideas as to what mental illness is and
how it should be treated, conceptions of and preferences for
management, education, and political theory and practice are all
appropriate to that state.[55]

The most
recent incarnation of Spiral Dynamics has been carried out by Don
Beck in collaboration with John Petersen of the Arlington
Institute,[56]Dr. Ichak Adizes, Alan Tonkin,
Evan Fowler, and several others who have continued to refine Spiral
Dynamics into what it is today--SDi. SDiis the name formally given to the addition of
Ken Wilber's model (4Q/8L)[57]into the equation: "An aggressive
and comprehensive All Quadrants/All Levelsstrategy designed to address the
asymmetrics and gaps in human development by mobilizing and
aligning our resources in a systemic manner so none be left
behind."[58]

Spiral
Dynamics is organized around waves of human unfolding called
vMEMEs. A vMEME is shorthand for value meme. Briefly, a meme has been called a
"mind virus" because it behaves like a virus though I find calling
it a virus is a bit too value laden.[59]
It is an independent idea, value, set of thoughts, beliefs, etc.
that has the tendency to "infect" or be passed like a virus from
person to person, group to group, or culture to culture. Memes are
also likened to genes yet they are not physical in any way. In
fact, strangely enough they would have no existence outside of
human minds yet they exhibit properties that seem to be
self-creating (autopoiesis) even at the cost of human
lives.[60]

A vMEME
specifically refers to a type of meme that is at once "a
psychological structure, value system, and mode of adaptation,
which can express
itself in numerous different ways, from
worldviews to clothing styles to governmental forms."[61]Spiral Dynamics outlines eight
distinct and basic vMEMEs with the potential for more to be added
as time and consciousness develop. These levels have been assigned
different colors to represent their respective characteristics and
to serve as convenient signifiers. Furthermore, they are divided
into two "tiers." Again, I will use Wilber's summary of the vMEMEs
to describe the distinct characteristics of each stage:

2. Purple:
Magical-Animistic.Thinking is animistic;
magical spirits, good and bad, swarm the earth leaving blessings,
curses, and spells that determine events. Forms into ethnic
tribes.The spirits exist in
ancestors and bond the tribe . . . 10 percent of the population, 1
percent of the power.

3. Red: Power
Gods.First emergence of a
distinct self from the tribe; powerful, impulsive, egocentric,
heroic . . . The basis of feudal empires power and glory.
The world is a jungle full of threats and predators . . . 20
percent of the population, 5 percent of the power.

4. Blue: Conformist
Rule.Life has meaning, direction,
and purpose, with outcomes determined by an all-powerful Other or
Order. This righteous Order enforces a code of conduct based on
absolutist and unvarying principles of "right" and "wrong" . . .
Rigid social hierarchies . . . Law and order; impulsivity
controlled through guilt; concrete-literal fundamentalist belief;
obedience to the rule of the Order . . . 40 percent of the
population, 30 percent of the power.

5. Orange: Scientific
Achievement.At this wave, the self
"escapes" from the
"herd mentality" of blue, and seeks truth and meaning in
individualistic terms--hypothetico-deductive, experimental,
objective, mechanistic, operational--"scientific" in the typical
sense. The world is a rational and well-oiled machine with natural
laws that can be learned, mastered, and manipulated for one's own
purposes. Highly achievement oriented, especially (in America)
toward materialistic gains . . . 30 percent of the population, 50
percent of the power.

6. Green: The Sensitive
Self.[62]Communitarian, human
bonding, ecological sensitivity, networking. The human spirit must
be freed from greed, dogma, and divisiveness; feelings and caring
supercede cold rationality; cherishing of the earth, Gaia, life.
Against hierarchy; establishes lateral bonding and linking . . .
Emphasis on dialogue, relationships . . . this worldview is often
called pluralistic relativism. . . 10 percent of the
population, 15 percent of the power.

Second Tier:

7. Yellow:
Integrative.Life is a kaleidoscope of
natural hierarchies [holarchies], systems, and forms. Flexibility,
spontaneity, and functionality have the highest priority.
Differences and pluralities can be integrated into interdependent,
natural flows . . . Knowledge and competency should supersede rank,
power, status, or group. The prevailing world order is theresult of
the existence of different levels of reality (memes) and the
inevitable patterns of movement up and down the dynamic spiral.
Good governance facilitates the emergence of entities throughout
the levels of increasing complexity (nested
hierarchy).

8. Turquoise:
Holistic.Universal holistic system,
holons/waves of integrative energies; unites feeling with knowledge
[centaur]; multiple levels interwoven into one conscious system.
Universal order, but in a living, conscious fashion, not based on
external rules (blue) or group bonds (green). A "grand unification"
is possible, in theory and in actuality. Sometimes involves the
emergence of a new spirituality as a meshwork of all existence.
Turquoise thinking uses the entire spiral; sees multiple levels of
interaction; detects harmonics, the mystical forces, and the
pervasive flow-states that permeate any organization.

Second-tier thinking: 1
percent of the population, 5 percent of the power.[63]

The
difference between the two tiers is crucial. The overriding
characteristic of first-tier thinking is the inability to perceive
the world from the perspective of the other vMEMEs. First-tier
thinking believes its worldview to be "better" than any of the
other memes, including second-tier. People in the first tier have a
chronic lack of ability to step out their values. It cannot grasp
the entire spectrum of interior and cultural development.
Second-tier thinking, on the other hand, doesn't have this problem.
Second-tier thinking is characterized by the ability to consider
the other vMEMEs in their own right and is not afraid of dynamic
hierarchical systems based upon this meta-perspective. It is in the
second-tier where all worldviews are beginning to be integrated and
balanced into a "higher" way of perceiving.[64]It is a multileveled,
multidimensional, richly holarchical view.[65]Second-tier thinking is rare.
However, according to many, it is emerging on a greater scale now
than it ever has especially with many "green memers" moving up the
spiral at the same time:

With
only 1 percent of the population at second-tier thinking (and only
0.1 percent at turquoise), second-tier consciousness is relatively
rare because it is now the "leading edge" of collective human
evolution. As examples, Beck and Cowan mention items ranging from
Teilhard de Chardin's noosphere[66]to the growth of transpersonal
psychology, with increases in frequency definitely on the way--and
even higher memes still in the offing . . .[67]

The vMEMEs
can be open, arrested, or closed (OAC status) and understood in the
context of phases: alpha, beta, gamma, delta, new alpha;
conditions: potential, solutions, dissonance, insight,
barriers, consolidation; variations:7th quantum, 6th
UP-Shift, 5th Break-OUT, 4th stretch-UP,
3rd Stretch-DOWN, 2nd Expand-OUT,
1st Fine-TUNE; and what Beck and Cowan call the
Universal "P-O-A" (politeness, openness, and autocracy) which is
necessary for healthy organizations. All of the states and
conditions are explained thoroughly in Spiral
Dynamicsand I only
mention them here because I want to show that this model is more
than would be assumed by looking at the tiers just
described.[68]When SD (SDi) is integrated with other time-tested models
such as the Enneagram, for example, what we end up with is a
seemingly complicated but more complete and holistic way of
understanding in this case, the individual. Wilber in particular is
quite good at integrating such models.[69]Yet, of course, he is not the only
one. Some of the figures who have pioneered the creation and
refinement of developmental models include the likes of Susan
Cook-Greuter, Carol Gilligan, Robert Kegan, Laurence Kohlberg, Jane
Loevinger, Jean Piaget, Jenny Wade, Charles Alexander, Howard
Gardner, and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.[70]

Spiral
Dynamics stands as an extremely timely and updated model in the
integral vision despite its shortcomings concerning the coverage of
transmental and transpersonal states as already mentioned.
Interestingly, Beck's model, like both Wilber's and Gebser's
models, foresees a great transition on the horizon. Spiral
Dynamics' description of the second-tier and the potential for
higher orders of being past the turquoise vMEME infer the
ever-refining development of consciousness on this
planet.

Mark
B. Woodhouse: Accelerated Interdimensional
Integration

A new worldviewis emerging, and many are kneedeep
in some very messy transition dynamics.[71]

Woodhouse is
the wildcard in this theoretical equation. What I mean is that he
is the one theorist presented here who is, to my knowledge, not
discussed nor mentioned by Wilber or any of the other integral
thinkers. If Woodhouse is acknowledged it is only in passing.
Despite his acute, well researched, and generally excellent
writing, I feel that the reason for this is because he seriously
considers and is willing to discuss such fringe phenomena as UFOs,
alien abduction experiences, and channeled information claims
without immediately dismissing or marginalizing them. Such
willingness, unfortunately, keeps him out-of-the-loop so to speak
for without this quality it wouldn't be hard to imaging his work
being a bit more popular.[72]Woodhouse's excellent and
fascinating book Paradigm Wars: Worldviews for a New
Age,is in my
estimation, just as holistic and integral of an approach as is the
works of Beck, Wilber, and Gebser. Woodhouse represents a kind of
litmus test for how far integral studies is willing to go. I
include his work here because he, like the above theorists,
proposes a major shift in consciousness on the horizon and also
because he does so with just as much of a critical eye and a
penchant for comprehensive mapmaking despite his relatively
unconventional views.

Paradigm
Warsis an example of
how to critically evaluate trends, influences, fields of study, and
paradigms of the modern and the postmodern world without maligning
or unnecessarily marginalizing streams of influence considered
"unverifiable" by traditional standards. When it comes to the
nature and style of Woodhouse's work he has this to say about
it:

Paradigm Warsaims,
accordingly, for what might be described as the less rigorous end
of academic scholarship and the more discerning New Age/New
Paradigm readership of popular culture. It can serve both as a
textbook for college courses and as companion reading for personal
exploration. This middle ground represents a huge market that
university presses and trade publishers tend to overlook, because
their sights usually are set respectively on the upper end of
intellectual respectability and the mid-to-lower end of popular
culture.[73]

He keenly
questions the assumptions and the challenges or our times. His core
methodology is quite similar to Wilber'
s in that he seeks to take
as broad of a sampling as possible and come to some basic, root
generalizations in an attempt to bridge gaps and integrate them as
much as possible:

In
fact, there doesn't have to be an all-purpose definition in the
first place. All we need are some overlapping goals at a
theoretical level and a sufficient number of bridgemovements at a
social level. The emergence of a new worldview is never a
monolithic, prearranged affair in which we all pledge mutual
respect and agreement before we jump in, so to speak.[74]

The way in
which Woodhouse approaches his subjects is less as someone who is
trying to develop a new system or "ism" and more as someone who
seeks only to put all the cards on the table so to speak. His is
one of less organization and more revelation. Fewer answers and
more questions. He certainly has reached conclusions and has made
strong proposals, but, in all, his work is more a call to honesty
and balance than it is to hard, unmovable injunctions. His
discussion of the phenomena of the New Age movement and what he
calls the "New Paradigm" and the "Rising Culture," are worth their
weight because, unfortunately, few authors have yet to treat this
topic with such fairness[75]:

In
short, the (popular) New Age is both more restricted than the New
Paradigm dialogue in the breadth of its vision and less
sophisticated in articulating that vision. But the two are
sometimes closely related under the umbrella of a Rising Culture .
. . Be aware of the unique demands of shifting contexts. The more
one retains general labels, the more likely one is to introduce
confusion and controversy from other parts of the cultural map.
It's impossible to know whether one is for or against the New Age
until one knows what the phrase means.[76]

Other topics
explored by Woodhouse include the relation of systems holism with
the perennial philosophy, the mainstream establishment and
alternative therapies, paranormal phenomena in relation to
verifiability, classical physics and the new physics, energy
monism, consciousness as the ground of reality, theories of time,
traditional educational systems and new forms of education,
channeling, and claims concerning extra-terrestrial agendas and
origins. In short, he is interested in a fair discussion of fringe
topics normally not given much rational consideration by other
"holistic" authors.[77]

To continue,
Woodhouse's conception of holons enveloping holons is nearly
identical to both Wilber and Beck's models of
development:

Each
level in the Great Chain (with the exception of the lowest)
contains the level below it and (with the exception of the highest)
is contained by the levels(s) above it. More structured than the
belief that everything contains everything else, interpretation is
asymmetric. Higher contains lower, suffuses and permeates lower,
but not the reverse.[78]

The only
difference between Woodhouse's model and Wilber's model of holonic
enfoldment is that Woodhouse believes there are ultimate ends
("with the exception of the lowest . . . with the exception of the
highest"[79]), and Wilber believes such enfoldment
runs infinitely into eternity: "And each of the virtual particles
in the cloud, of course, also drags along its own virtual cloud,
bubbles within bubbles [holons within holons], and so on ad
infinitum. .
."[80]This distinction is crucial when
discussing epistemologies and underlying assumptions. However, it
is a distinction that is not crucial to our discussion here. What
is crucial is how Woodhouse's theories and ideas of the coming
transformational shift are similar and different to those of
Wilber, Gebser, and Beck/Cowan/Graves.

Woodhouse
sees that the pace of change in our cultural worldspace is
quickening and seems to be shifting in ever more complex and
difficult to adjust-to ways:

What
is happening? There are plenty of sociological explanations.
Here are some examples. For one, our values may not be keeping up
with the pace of technological change. Then again, cultural
relativism is rampant; any behavior is OK, so long as one claims
the appropriate legal or moral right. Or it may be observed that
the media is simply giving us more information than we can
meaningfully assimilate. Then, too, people's very life-styles are
being threatened by massive trends seemingly beyond their control.
Congress appears unable to come to grips with major issues,
especially those relating to the economy. We are being conditioned
to blame others when things don't go our way. Living without a
sense of rootedness causes deep anxieties, thereby causing us to
invent cosmic meaning for our lives even if they have little basis
in fact. And it's not surprising that, faced with massive despair
and little hope, people turn to drugs . . . However, according to
psychological and sociological perspectives, there is nothing
metaphysically significant about this time of great change. Nothing
is going on behind the scenes, so to speak . . . There is some
truth to virtually all of the above explanations. However, the
question is whether they go far enough, whether they really get to
the heart of the matter. I don't think they do. I believe that
something quite metaphysically significant is transpiring behind
the scenes. Behind what we can see, I think, are energetic shifts
on a global scale that we cannot see. I call this process
"accelerated interdimensional integration." This is a speculative
concept, but one which provides a needed supplement to the
literature of crises and change.[81]

Woodhouse
goes on to outline certain key features of this accelerated
process. These key attributes reflect a proclivity towards an
understanding of reality as energy and includes the idea that our
dimension is being infused with increasing amounts of higher and
faster vibrations of energy thereby pushing old paradigms and
pathologies to the surface in an effort to "purge" whilst at the
same time making more room for a "fourth-dimensional awareness."
Finally, Woodhouse believes that, within the next ten or so years,
society will increasingly split into two distinct sides represented
by a bell curve. On one side is the rising culture and the other is
the dying culture. On this last idea Woodhouse says:

This
divergence of rising and decaying cultures is only a transitional
picture. After a suitable period of time, the Rising Culture will
be represented by a single curve. The shift will be relatively
complete. And we shall see things and do things we never thought
likely or possible, especially in the areas of health, education,
and relationships. Occupying a new perspective within the Great
Chain inevitably extends the limits of the possible.[82]

Woodhouse's
ideas are unlike Wilber's, Gebser's and Beck's in that he is less
concerned with problem of proof and the rigid academic view it
represents.[83]Although his conclusions are both
highly personalized and, to an extent, highly biased they are also
highly objective.[84]They are based upon careful
consideration of the available alternatives and proclivities toward
subjective interpretation much in the same way that the other three
are. Mark Woodhouse is as guilty as any other writer or theorist in
that he cannot escape his subjective truth. However, he, like
Wilber, Gebser, and Beck, proposes his ideas with wisdom,
intelligence, meticulous research and an inspiring vision of what
the future, our future, holds.

II.
Integral Studies

On the
Nature of Theory and Practice

Theory is
often seen dichotomously relative to practice or application. It is
not past me to understand the usefulness of this distinction, and
if used with mindfulness, makes a great deal of sense. However, I
also get the impression that there is a general lack of
understanding, especially in pragmatically oriented, "back to
basics" circles, about the importance and role of
theory.

The pursuit
to understand and develop fundamental ideas, concepts, and visions
through the use of verbal and written language is something that
pervades and underlies our culture in very profound and important
ways. The theory that we know as the scientific method is a case in
point. Before any applications were made and before it was put into
practice, this theory was incubated through years of wonder,
thought, careful observation, imagination, and intuition, all being
the foundation of action.

Nothing
exists in a vacuum, that is, nothing that we do or say happens out
of extremely complex and dynamical contexts that exist on multiple
levels. The scientific method, although proved to work within our
experience of the world, was developed as a result of curiosity
about our world and the inherent need to make sense of it all. In
Jean Gebser's terms this development is directly related to the
rational structure of consciousness. Nonetheless, another example
is the theory of universal human rights, an idea that is younger
than most people living today are aware of and an idea that was
born out of decades if not centuries of conflict and human
suffering. Today, as mostly postmodern Westerners, we are likely to
take such things for granted. Thus, through this, we can move into
a greater understanding of waves of development heretofore called
holarchies.[85]Woodhouse describes hierarchies in a
similar way:

The
concept of hierarchical interpenetration is foundational to the
emergence of any paradigm that claims adequacy. It represents a key
philosophical and experiential insight that, when properly
interpreted, resolves a number of long-standing philosophical
disputes.

Quite often,
I believe, carefully constructed and stable theories are at the
heart of nearly every single major course of deliberate action that
the modern and postmodern world has seen.[86]That is not to say that these theories
weren't themselves grounded or born out of pure inspiration or
transpersonal states of awareness, i.e., born out of non-rational,
non-logical means. Many great insights have come from realms beyond
what we call the rational or the mental. Indeed, that is at the
core of what the term "insight" means.[87]However, in this world, such
inspiration, in its raw form, is simply not enough to change the
world in increasingly effective ways (and it is changing the world,
hopefully for the better, that we are talking about when we wish to
emphasize the importance of applications). In terms of action in
the world, just because an individual has a powerfully
transpersonal experience of oneness with the cosmos doesn't imply
that they will know how to raise a child, balance their checkbook,
or carry on a decent conversation.

If we were
to observe every act taken that has produced quantifiable results
whether it be the construction of modern cities, the development of
the internet, or the construction of the light bulb in your lamp we
would see behind it a well-fleshed, well-thought, and solid theory.
This theory would in turn have been seeded by inspiration.[88]Sometimes such theory is the
result of an individual's efforts and sometimes it is the result of
a collective effort (keeping in mind that such boundaries are
extremely tenuous).

However,
another possible way of looking at the issue is to say that theory
isa form of
action. If looked at this way, we would inevitably by-pass the
whole dualism of theory vs. practice and thus move towards a more
fluid understanding, a holonic understanding. When I tell someone
that I am researching and writing theory they almost automatically
think of the seemingly opposite, practice. As I stated before, I
agree that this is a useful distinction. However, I do not think
that it is a necessary one. In a sense, we are always "doing
something" unless we are "doing nothing" in which case has nothing
to do with theory or practice in the first place.[89]

If one
downplays the importance of theory, then one downplays the whole
history of conscious human understanding (at least the history of
the modern world). It is a practice that is integral to the ways in
which we know our world.[90]
I do not wish to overemphasize its importance because it is only
one fraction of the whole story. Nonetheless, the endeavor of
theory as a practice, as a discipline, as a profession, is a
fundamental and increasingly sophisticated practice of
self-reflection in both the individual and the collective
sense.

In the
context of integral studies, theory is only one aspect of the whole
story. The intellectual capacity is really, in important ways, a
means to an end. The whole endeavor must be put into the right
context in order to be of any ultimate use to the field. Here is
where it is at odds with most other disciplines. Not only does it
seek to correct, integrate, and expand upon the existing
understanding of our world in an intellectual, vision-logic sense
but it also seeks to put the needed emphasis upon direct
revelationof said
truths, especially where it concerns transpersonal and transmental
understanding. According to the great wisdom traditions and to
transpersonal theory there will always be a limit to how far logic
and reason alone will take an individual. Aside from correcting
that type of understanding through experiment, data accumulation,
and consensual justification, the individual must be willing to
take up what Michael Murphy and his colleagues call "integral
transformative practice."[91]Again, Wilber writes:

The
fact that the physiological (or "material") and the cognitive (or
"mental") are two of the most fundamental lines in the human being
("matter" and "consciousness," Right and Left) means that a truly
integral spiritual practice would, at the very least, put an equal
emphasis on both body and mind at each and every stage of general
evolution, gross bodymind to subtle bodymind to causal
bodymind.[92]

It is this
transformative practice that grounds all of the theories and ideas.
It not only builds upon the theories but precedes the theories in
many ways that cannot be understood intellectually. Theory can
point in the right direction and provides a structure by which to
guide. Transformative practice such as meditation, yoga, or even
entheogens,[93]so the idea goes, are the
substance of such theories, especially theories such as those
presented here. One begets the other in a cyclical process. There
is an inner science and there is an outer science. Ultimately they
are one and the same.

The
Validity of Integral Knowing and the Problem of
Proof

The question
of how we can know something and what it is that we can know is
fundamental to any valid quest for understanding. Questioning our
underlying assumptions is difficult for most people but it is
indispensable. That is, if we are to make the fundamental assertion
that there is any understanding to be had in the first
place.

In The
Eye of SpiritWilber
discusses this thorny issue in great detail. He helps to reveal in
what ways integral studies is similar to and different from other
disciplines dedicated to solid injunction and not merely
speculation. According to him there are three characteristics that
all valid knowledge quests must follow:

1. Instrumental
injunction.This is generally of the
form, "If you want to knowthis, dothis."

2. Intuitive
apprehension.This is an immediate
experience of the domain disclosed by the injunction; that is, a
direct experience or data-apprehension. (Even if the data is
mediated, at the moment of experience it is immediately
apprehended). In other words, this is the direct apprehension of
the data brought forth by the particular injunction, whether that
data be sensory experience, mental experience, or spiritual
experience.

3. Communal
confirmation(or rejection). This is a
checking of the results--the data, the evidence--with others who have
adequately completedthe injunctive and
apprehensive strands.[94]

Starting
from these three premises we can then move into a more accurate way
of describing and experiencing things. Wilber again: Thus, the
epistemological claims of integral studies are, like any other
valid knowledge claims, thoroughly grounded in experiment, data
accumulation, and consensual justification."[95]

For
Woodhouse, all claims are only a matter of degree, there is no way
to know a given claim conclusively: "For virtually no claim ever
gets conclusively proven. The evidence for our beliefs simply
ranges from very strong to very weak."[96]Similar to Wilber's three criteria
Woodhouse also has a list of performances to make except that he
applies them specifically to claims of the paranormal
variety:

A
recurring, identifiable phenomenon; overall reliability of reports;
veridicality of relevant experiences; confirmability; coherence of
phenomena within a larger paradigm; inability of competing
paradigms to reasonably explain the phenomena; applicability of the
explanation to other related phenomena; falsifiability; capacity to
generate further test implications; capacity to make a positive
difference in promoting shared views and goals.

He goes on
to qualify the criteria:

These are the main criteria
by which we would attempt to answer the question "What is real?" in
normal science and, appropriately modified, the criteria by which
we can approach the same question in the parasciences. The
difference between how they are used in mainstream science and how
they are used in parapsychology, transpersonal psychology, and
spiritual practices depends on how narrowly or broadly we interpret
experience. I have adopted the broad interpretation to show how the
same criteria can be applied across domains.[97]

Integral
Studies seeks to apply these premises and types of criteria across
all domains and fields.

In
Conclusion

The integral
vision, in theory, draws upon such a vast ocean of knowledge and
experience that any attempt at covering all of its avenues is bound
to be, in some area, parsimonious and incomplete. To integrate and
organize as much relevant information as possible is a feat that
can be nothing more than a perpetual work-in-progress. In reality,
all human inquiry and understanding is a work in progress yet much
of our history is characterized by definitive proclamations that
leave no or little room for improvement. This is the story that
underlies the search for a general theory of
everything, not
just the physical world.

Nonetheless,
as far as my purposes here are concerned, it is my opinion that
methodsand
applicationsbased
on the visionary theories proposed by the likes of Wilber, Gebser,
and Graves/Beck/Cowan have notbeen adequately formed and the ones that have
been formed have yet to be sufficiently tested
empirically.

Again, where
applications have been formed or proposed there is a general lack
of refinement that can only come from further research and a
greater pooling of individuals and organizations working in this
area. The impulse to create comprehensive maps of life, the
universe, and everything from this new way of being in the world
is, essentially, what the field is about.

At the time
of this writing integral studies is still very much in a
gestational phase. Only a relatively small percentage of the world
and more specifically the American population is involved in,
interested in, or actively living from this type of inquiry and
awareness. There simply hasn't been enough time for these ideas to
be tested in the culture at large over the periods of time needed
for much of the empirical research that would help to solidify the
field. Of course, much of the field is based upon empirical
research that has been done under different guises such as
developmental theory, evolutionary theory, systems theory,
complexity science, and transpersonal studies. So, in this sense it
could be argued that any new field, at least in the beginning, is a
matter of linguistic relativity.

To be clear,
I am stating that basic proposals havebeen made into the idea of what, for example,
an integral pedagogy would look like. Both Wilber and Beck
havemade a great
deal of trailblazing in this regard. However, there has
notbeen much
widespread action taken to test their methodologies and hypotheses,
that is, on a larger scale. The possible exception is the great
deal of work that Beck and Cowan have made into applying Spiral
Dynamics, to a turbulent South Africa; a test that is well
documented in Beck's book The Crucible.[98]They have, in a number of important
ways, arduously tried to apply their ideas in the real
world.

My point
here is that such applicable efforts have not only been widely
unknown to most people but have also been carried out in limited or
limiting contexts. Of course, in my opinion, this is more a matter
of getting enough people to do the basic research required to test
the theories. Nonetheless, what research has been done should not
be overlooked. Arguably, a good place to see the beginning of this
application of theory and the first strong steps toward a greater
dissemination is the newly formed Integral Institute[99],
whose founding members include nearly every major professional who
has been instrumental with the establishment of the overall
integral ambition.

No less
important in the context provided here are questions concerning why
applications must be developed in the first place, how the pedagogy
would be different, and what is the ultimate goal or purpose. This
is a question of motive and must be included in the general impulse
to create better maps by which to live by. It should go without
saying that the answers to these questions, however relative, can
either be simple summaries or complex explanations. Hopefully, both
approaches can be used without losing sight of the vision, the
original creative impulse driving our desire to know.

The four
models introduced here and briefly outlined are among the first
wave of models based upon this more organized vision. I
t is
certainly a matter of speculation when considering where these
models will be in the future since more refined and sophisticated
models are still in the making. One thing is certain: the integral
vision has not fallen on deaf ears. There are already a growing
number of individuals who are working hard to develop and expand
the proposals and injunctions given here. With such strong and
inspiring minds as the likes of Ken Wilber, Jean Gebser, Don Beck,
Mark Woodhouse, and the whole array of individuals and
organizations dedicated to this effort, the vision stands as the
vanguard of a truly new wave of human evolution.

[2]"The mental-rational consciousness,
which operates on the basis of a spatialization of reality, is
intrinsically perspectival. It has the ego as the point of origin
of its conceptualization of the world. The arational-integral
consciousness, however, is ego-free (not merely egoless) and hence
also aperspectival, that is to say, not transfixed in partial
viewpoints." (Structures of Consciousness,p. 212)

[3]Integral-aperspectival is similar to
Wilber's vision-logic. It is a special way of seeing, a sort of
cognition: "As rationality continues its quest for a truly
universal or global or planetary outlook, noncoercive in nature, it
eventually gives way to a type of cognition I call vision-logic or
network-logic. Where rationality gives all possible perspectives,
vision-logic adds them up into a totality, which is simply the new
and higher interior holon. Aurobindo gave the classic description
of vision-logic, which can freely express itself in single ideas,
but its most characteristic movement is a mass ideation, a system
or totality of truth-seeing at a single view; the r
elations of idea
with ideas, or truth with truth, self-seen in the integral whole."
(Sex, Ecology, Spirituality,p. 190)

[4]"(C)lear cut boundaries are rare."
(Woodhouse, Paradigm Wars,p. 8) and "There is no single correct
interpretation because no holon has only one context. There are as
many legitimate meanings as there are legitimate contexts, which
does not lead to nihilism but cornucopia." (Wilber, The Eye of
Spirit,p.
122)

[6]The Great Chain of Being is also
called the "Great Nest of Being" and can be understood as the "view
that reality is composed of various levels of
existence--levels of being
and knowing--ranging from matter to conception of wholes within
wholes within wholes indefinitely, reaching from dirt to Divinity .
. . The Great Nest of Being is the backbone of the perennial
philosophy, and it would therefore be a crucial ingredient of any
truly integral psychology." (Wilber, Integral
Psychology,pp. 5-6) It
might also be helpful to keep in mind that the perennial philosophy
is a reoccurring theme in the field and especially in its
predecessor, Transpersonal Psychology.

[8]"(T)he great wisdom traditions
even at their beststill neglected several crucial items, items
that the early investigators of the spectrum of consciousness could
not, or at any rate did not, know." (EOS,p. 30)

[9]In fact, Spiral Dynamics (now known
as Spiral Dynamics Integral) has essentially become a core model of the
integral movement.

[10]"The origin and the
arational-integral consciousness (which renders the origin
transparent to the wakeful consciousness) can be said to be
atemporal, or achronic, because they are not defined by experience
or conceptualized time, just as they transcend experienced or
conceptualized space." (Structures of Consciousness,p. 213) In other words, "time
transcending."

[13]That's Kosmos with a "K." This term
is specific to Wilber and seems to be borrowed directly from Plato.
Wilber uses it to denote a more complete version of the universe:
"The Kosmos contains the cosmos (or the physiosphere), the bios (or
biosphere), nous (the noosphere), and theos (the theosphere or
divine domain)--none of them being foundational (even spirit shades
into Emptiness)." (Sex, Ecology, Spirituality,p. 45)

[15]Wilber describes his work as having
four phases. Phase 1 is the Romantic Wilber, II is the
Aurobindo/Wilber model, phase III is when he began a more
fleshed-out account of the contributions of Western culture, and IV
is where he combines all these phases and adds a more mature
context set firmly within the four quadrants and their historical
unfolding. (The Eye
of Spirit,p. 309) Phase
four is what I am referring to in this essay.

[16]I mention only the more technical
books he has written. He is also popular for a handful of more
reflective and poetic writings.

[17]"Put differently, I sought a world
philosophy. I sought an integralphilosophy, one that would believably weave
together the many pluralistic contexts of science, morals,
aesthetics, Eastern as well as Western philosophy, and the world's
great wisdom traditions. Not on the level of details--that is
finitely impossible; but on the level of orienting generalizations:
a way to suggest that the world really is one, undivided, whole,
and related to itself in every way: a holistic philosophy for a
holistic Kosmos: a world philosophy, an integral philosophy."
(SES,xii)

[18]He wrote this at the age of
twenty-three after dropping out of graduate school studying for a
degree in molecular biology.

[23]Gebser has been largely unheard of
by the mainstream academic community until recently. According to
Georg Feuerstein in his introduction and critique of Gebser,
Structures of Consciousness,the reason for this apparent lack of recognition
since his death (despite a fair degree of notoriety during his
lifetime, especially after the publication of The Ever-Present
Origin)is due largely to
the prevailing attitudes during and after the war years: "While
Europe was still caught in the melancholy mood of the war years,
Gebser's constructive challenge held no fascination. In the
frivolous boom years of economic reconstruction after World War II,
his work seemed too 'perennial' to be attractive to the frenetic,
progress-oriented mind. And Gebser steadfastly refused to
sensationalize, propagandize, or, as did Sartre, climb on the
barricades to get a hearing. In the feverish counter-culture of the
1060s and the 1970s, the sobering demand for personal initiative
and integrity implicit in his work could not possibly have had
appeal. Now, as we inexorably move toward the close of this
millennium, we are once again getting in touch with our
disillusionment, jadedness, and "sense of vacancy." (p. 32,
originally taken from the foreword by Gordon Rattray Taylor in
Rethink, 1949 and
1950)

[24]Here I am using the only English
translation available thanks to Noel Barstad and Algis Mickunas of
Ohio University.

[27]Originally motivated by the work of
Rainer Maria Rilke, he moved here and worked with Federico Garcia
Lorca among other notable Spaniards (SOC,p. 25) Gebser was also a member of Carl
Jung's institute for a number of years. (SOC)

[35]As it is practiced by people where
it is considered indigenous, i.e., not necessarily from an
revisionist perspective or by someone in a modern country
revivifying a certain school such as neo or techno
shamanism.

[40]Gebser's terms are coined by him.
They are arguably esoteric to the average reader yet to him there
simply did not exist the words to adequately describe what he
meant. "The former deals with what is concealed; as Gebser
describes it, latency is the demonstrable presence of the future.
In this manner the seeds of all subsequent phases of evolution are
contained in the current one. It is on the basis of this aspect
that integration takes place. The second term, transparency, deals
with what is revealed. According to Gebser, transparency
(diaphaneity) is the form of manifestation (epiphany) of the
spiritual. This is perhaps the most important statement he makes.
The origin, the source from which all springs, is a spiritual one,
and all phases of consciousness evolution are a testimony to the
ever less latent and ever more transparent spirituality that is
inherent in all that is. Without a recognition of this fundamental
and pivotal idea, Gebser cannot be understood and we will not be
able to understand ourselves. It is not just an intellectual
development that is being described in his theory, rather it is the
ever more apparent manifestation of the spiritual that underlies
and supports the concept of evolution itself." (The Primordial
Leap and the Present: The Ever-Present Origin--An Overview of the
Work of Jean Gebser)

[41]See Wilber's books, predominantly
Sex, Ecology, Spiritualityfor an exhaustively detailed discussion on the
nature of postmodernism in relation to the emergent
consciousness.

[43]The subject of the usefulness or
necessity of using esoteric language is beyond the scope of the
essay here. It is my belief that Gebser, perhaps could have used
more graspable language. Yet, I do also get the impression that
this was less important to him as it was to get the meaning just
right. In a sense, he wasn't writing for the public but to deepen
and flesh-out his understanding. Of course, keeping firmly in mind
the context in which he lived.

[50]Clare Graves formerly taught
psychology at the Union College in Schenectady, New York before his
death in 1986.

[51]The Search for Cohesion in the
Age of Fragmentation: From the New World Order to the Next Global
Meshby Don Beck, Ph.D.
Taken from www.integralage.org/docs/DonBeck1.
Note: integralage.org does not exist anymore.

[52]Oneof the functions of adding Wilber's model is due
to the fact that Spiral Dynamics did not include the "higher"
stages or levels of development such as the transpersonal and the
transmental: "As is usually the case with Western researchers, he
recognized no higher (transpersonal) levels, but the contributions
he (Graves) made to the prepersonal and personal realms were
profound." (Integral Psychology, p. 40) SDistill lacks a completeaccount of transpersonal states of
consciousness though this is being remedied.

[54]"(T)o date, it has been tested in
over fifty thousand people from around the world, and there have
been no major exceptions found to his scheme . . . Far from being
armchair analysts, Beck and Cowan participated in the discussions
that led to the end of apartheid in South Africa . . . The
principles of Spiral Dynamics have been fruitfully used to
reorganize businesses, revitalize townships, overhaul educational
systems, and defuse inner-city tensions. Beck and Cowan have had
this extraordinary success because, in a world lost in pluralistic
relativism, they have brought the clarity--and the reality--of
dynamic developmentalism." (Integral Psychology,p. 41)

[56]The Arlington Institute in
Arlington, Virginia, is where the Vital Sign's Monitor is currently
being developed: "The intent of the Vital Signs Monitor, displayed
within the Institute's Fusion Center, is to track vMEMETIC flows and Stages of
Change within the American society . . . The Arlington Institute is
currently using national polling firms to detect our "EKG"-like
social pulses" (Don Beck, The Search for Cohesion in the Age of
Fragmentation).

[59]
The term was first coined by the evolutionary biologist Richard
Dawkins with his publication of The Selfish Genein 1976.

[60]There are currently several
excellent books covering the topic of memes. The ones I have found
the most useful are The Meme Machineby Susan Blackmore (1999); The Selfish
Geneby Richard Dawkins
(1976); The Evolving Self: A Psychology for the Third
Millenniumby Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi; and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind
from the Big Bang to the 21st Centuryby Howard Bloom (2000).

[62]The Green meme, both healthy and
pathological versions, have been given an exhaustive amount of
attention by Wilber. Since much of his work is written for
academically minded people, and since most academics express the
green meme rather strongly, this makes a great deal of
sense.

[66]The term "noosphere," or, the world
of the mind, has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy but was
given new life by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Sir Karl Popper.
Teilhard de Chardin understood the noosphere as the third world,
the first being the lithosphere (physiosphere), and the second
being the biosphere.

[72]Relatively speaking, many of the
integrally informed are still among the minority and in many ways
trying to establish credibility. It stands to reason that the lack
of credibility leveled against metaphysics and New Age literature
by the mainstream has much to do with this.

[77]Wilber discusses the New Age/New
Paradigm but does not distinguish the two as does Woodhouse.
Furthermore, like Woodhouse, he criticizes the various New Age
movements in much the same manner, i.e., as being shallow,
incomplete, retro-romantic, and magical narcissistic. However,
Wilber goes no further than this and fails to discuss other
phenomena such as UFOs and channeling within a more discriminating
light in the way, I believe, Woodhouse does. Woodhouse's discussion
is a continuation of where Wilber leaves off when it comes to New
Age faddism and its related phenomena. Conversely, Wilber would,
conceivably, put Woodhouse in the proverbial doghouse with the rest
of the retro-romantics and New Age trippers.

[83]The literature of "crisis and
change" can just as easily refer to the various books about pole
shifts, earth changes, 2012, and the photon belt as it can refer to
more "respectable" works exemplified by Wilber, Stan Grof, and
others.

[84]At first sight this might seem to be
a contradiction in terms yet I maintain that these qualities do
co-exist. Some would call this depth.

[85]"Thus holarchy,as I use the term, includes a balance of
both hierarchy(qualitatively ranked levels) and
heterarchy(mutually
linked dimensions). Theorists who attempt to use only one or the
other of those types of relations have consistently failed to
explain development at all." (Integral Psychology,p. 32) The terms "holarchy" and
"holons" were originally taken from the influencial book The
Ghost in the Machineby
Arthur Koestler.

[86]If they weren't necessarily
premeditated then they most definitely were rationalized and even
justified after the fact.

[87]At this level, such distinctions
become blurred to the point where the discussion could easily be
propelled into philosophical hermeneutics.

[90]"Ours is a complex world. But human knowledge is
finite and circumscribed. 'Nature does not come as clean as
you can think it,' warned Alfred North Whitehead, and went on to
propound an extremely clean and elegant cosmology. Since theories, like window
panes, are clear only when they are clean, and the world does not
come as cleanly as all that, we must know where we perform a
clean-up operation.
Scientific theories, while simpler than reality, must nevertheless
reflect its essential structure." (Ervin Laszlo in The Systems
View of the World,p.
9)

[91]Michael Murphy is a pioneer in this
area and an individual at the forefront of the
Integral/transformative movement. See his book The Future of the
Bodyfor a more detailed
understanding of ITP:
"And the overall conclusion of the book is unmistakable: integral practice is now
the most viable mode of human transformation." (The Eye of
Spirit,p. 234). In terms of an introduction
to integral theory Michael Murphy would be immediately included for
his ITP alone but since this introduction is but a brief glimpse he
has been intentionally left out.